RFA/
SBREFA
SCREENING
ANALYSIS
FOR
THE
PROPOSED
WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
RULE
FOR
THE
STATE
OF
OREGON
September
2003
Prepared
for:

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Office
of
Water,
Office
of
Water
Science
1201
Constitution
Avenue,
N.
W.
5th
Floor
Connecting
Wing
Washington,
D.
C.
20460
Prepared
by:

Science
Applications
International
Corporation
11251
Roger
Bacon
Drive
Reston,
Virginia
20190
EPA
Contract
No.
68­
C­
99­
252
SAIC
Project
No.
01­
0833­
04­
5532­
xxx
September
2003
RFA/
SBREFA
Screening
Analysis
i
Table
of
Contents
Executive
Summary
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ES­
1
1.0
Introduction
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
2.0
Analysis
Method
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
2.1
Definition
of
Small
Entities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
2.2
Identifying
Small
Entities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
2.3
Evaluating
Potential
Economic
Impact
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
3.0
Results
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
4.0
References
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
List
of
Exhibits
Exhibit
2­
1.
Summary
of
Facilities
Potentially
Affected
by
the
Rule
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
Exhibit
2­
2.
Small
Entities
Potentially
Affected
by
the
Rule
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
Exhibit
3­
1.
Results
of
Screening
Analysis
for
Small
Municipalities
in
Oregon1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
Exhibit
3­
2.
Results
of
Screening
Analysis
for
All
Small
Entities
in
Oregon
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
September
2003
RFA/
SBREFA
Screening
Analysis
ii
Acronyms
CFR
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
CWA
Clean
Water
Act
EPA
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
NAICS
North
American
Industry
Classification
System
NPDES
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
RFA
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
ODEQ
Oregon
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
SBA
Small
Business
Administration
SBREFA
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
WQS
Water
quality
standards
September
2003
RFA/
SBREFA
Screening
Analysis
ES­
1
Executive
Summary
The
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
is
proposing
water
quality
standards
applicable
to
waters
of
the
United
States
in
the
State
of
Oregon.
Section
303(
c)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
authorizes
the
EPA
Administrator
to
promulgate
water
quality
standards
to
supersede
State
standards
that
have
been
disapproved,
or
in
cases
where
the
Administrator
determines
that
a
new
or
revised
standard
is
needed
to
meet
the
Act's
requirements.

On
March
31,
2003,
the
U.
S.
District
Court
for
the
District
of
Oregon
ruled
in
Northwest
Environmental
Advocates
v.
EPA
&
NMFS
(
No.
CV­
01­
510­
HA)
that
EPA
had
violated
the
CWA
and
the
ESA
when
it
approved
certain
water
quality
standards
for
the
protection
of
salmonids
that
were
contained
in
Oregon's
1996
submission.
The
Court
directed
EPA
to
promulgate
new
temperature
water
quality
standards
to
address
deficiencies
in
"
time
and
place"
designations
among
the
State
standards,
to
promulgate
new
water
quality
criteria
for
intergravel
dissolved
oxygen,
and
to
promulgate
an
antidegradation
implementation
plan.
The
proposed
rule
addresses
these
Court
orders.

EPA's
proposed
rule
does
not
itself
establish
any
requirements
directly
applicable
to
regulated
entities.
The
provisions
would
not
be
enforceable
against
new
or
existing
discharges
until
separate
steps
are
taken
by
the
State
of
Oregon
to
implement
them.
That
is,
until
actions
are
taken
to
adopt
and
implement
this
proposed
rule,
there
will
be
no
economic
effect
on
any
dischargers.
To
comply
with
the
standards,
however,
the
State
may
alter
the
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
permit
limits
for
point
sources
that
discharge
to
the
affected
waters.
Thus,
the
proposed
rule
may
have
an
economic
impact
on
point
sources,
including
small
businesses
and
governments.
EPA
developed
an
estimate
of
this
impact.
However,
because
small
communities
may
pursue
alternative
compliance
approaches
(
e.
g.,
water
quality
standards
variances,
changes
in
designated
uses)
or
obtain
grant
monies
and
state
loans,
EPA's
estimates
may
overstate
the
impact
of
the
proposed
rule.

Nonetheless,
EPA
used
its
estimates
to
consider
potential
impacts
on
small
entities
pursuant
to
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
of
1980
(
RFA),
as
amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996
(
SBREFA).
The
RFA
was
enacted
to
increase
agency
awareness
of
the
impact
of
regulations
on
small
entities,
to
allow
for
public
comments
on
regulations
that
affect
small
entities,
and
to
encourage
agency
use
of
flexibility
in
regulating
small
entities.
SBREFA
amended
the
RFA
to
strengthen
its
analytical
and
procedural
requirements.
This
report
provides
EPA's
screening­
level
analysis
of
small
entity
impacts.

Based
on
its
estimated
costs
of
the
proposed
rule,
EPA
observed
that
3
small
government
entities
could
incur
costs
that
equal
or
exceed
1%
of
revenues.
For
2
of
these
entities,
costs
may
equal
or
exceed
3%
of
revenues
(
the
ratios
are
4.5%
and
8.3%).
For
comparison,
based
on
population
in
2002,
there
are
approximately
230
small
municipalities
in
the
State.
Data
are
not
available
to
determine
if
85
businesses
affected
by
the
proposed
rule
would
be
classified
as
small,
or
what
percent
of
revenues
the
estimated
costs
would
represent.
Nonetheless,
EPA
estimated
that
at
most,
13
may
incur
costs.
For
comparison,
there
are
over
83,000
small
businesses
in
the
State.
Therefore,
the
results
suggests
that
the
proposed
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
September
2003
RFA/
SBREFA
Screening
Analysis
ES­
2
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities,
either
by
category
(
small
governments
and
small
businesses),
or
in
combination.
September
2003
RFA/
SBREFA
Screening
Analysis
1
1.0
Introduction
The
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
is
proposing
water
quality
standards
(
WQS)
applicable
to
waters
of
the
United
States
in
the
State
of
Oregon.
This
proposed
rule
would
not
itself
establish
any
requirements
directly
applicable
to
regulated
entities.
That
is,
until
actions
are
taken
to
adopt
and
implement
EPA's
proposed
rule,
there
will
be
no
economic
effect
on
any
dischargers
or
the
community.
To
comply
with
the
standards,
however,
the
State
may
need
to
alter
the
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
permit
limits
for
point
sources
that
discharge
to
the
affected
waters.
Thus,
the
proposed
rule
may
have
an
economic
impact
on
point
sources,
including
small
businesses
and
governments.
This
report
contains
EPA's
analysis
of
whether
there
may
be
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
these
small
entities.

The
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA)
directs
States,
with
oversight
by
EPA,
to
adopt
WQS
to
protect
the
public
health
and
welfare,
enhance
the
quality
of
water,
and
serve
the
purposes
of
the
CWA.
Under
Section
303,
States'
water
quality
standards
must
include
at
a
minimum:
(
1)
designated
uses
for
all
water
bodies
within
their
jurisdictions,
(
2)
water
quality
criteria
sufficient
to
protect
the
most
sensitive
of
the
uses,
and
(
3)
an
antidegradation
policy
consistent
with
the
regulations
at
40
CFR
131.12.
States
are
also
required
to
hold
public
hearings
once
every
three
years
for
the
purpose
of
reviewing
applicable
water
quality
standards
and,
as
appropriate,
modifying
and
adopting
standards.
The
results
of
this
triennial
review
must
be
submitted
to
EPA
and
EPA
must
approve
or
disapprove
any
new
or
revised
standards.
Section
303(
c)
also
directs
the
EPA
Administrator
to
promulgate
WQS
to
supersede
State
standards
that
have
been
disapproved
or
in
cases
where
the
Administrator
determines
that
a
new
or
revised
standard
is
needed
to
meet
the
CWA's
requirements.

With
respect
to
antidegradation,
EPA
requires
that
States
identify
implementation
procedures
to
provide
three
levels
of
water
quality
protection
under
their
policy.
The
first
level
of
protection
at
40
CFR
131.12(
a)(
1)
requires
the
maintenance
and
protection
of
existing
in­
stream
water
uses,
and
the
level
of
water
quality
necessary
to
protect
these
existing
uses
(
i.
e.,
those
uses
actually
attained
on
or
after
November
28,
1975).
The
second
level
of
protection
is
for
high­
quality
waters,
defined
in
40
CFR
131.12(
a)(
2)
as
waters
where
the
quality
of
the
water
exceeds
levels
necessary
to
support
the
propagation
of
fish,
shellfish,
and
wildlife,
and
recreation
in
and
on
the
water.
The
quality
of
high­
quality
waters
is
to
be
maintained
and
protected
unless
the
State
finds,
after
public
participation
and
intergovernmental
review,
that
allowing
lower
water
quality
is
necessary
to
accommodate
important
economic
or
social
development
in
the
area
in
which
the
waters
are
located.
Finally,
EPA
designates
the
third
and
highest
level
of
protection
for
Outstanding
National
Resource
Waters
(
ONRWs).
If
an
authorized
entity
determines
that
the
characteristics
of
a
water
body
constitute
an
ONRW,
such
as
waters
of
National
and
State
parks,
wildlife
refuges,
and
waters
of
exceptional
recreational
or
ecological
significance,
those
characteristics
must
be
maintained
and
protected
(
see
40
CFR
131.12(
a)(
3)).

On
July
23,
1996,
the
State
of
Oregon
submitted
revisions
to
its
water
quality
standards
to
EPA
for
review,
and
approval
or
disapproval,
pursuant
to
CWA
section
303(
c)(
2)(
A).
Certain
of
these
revisions
identified
specific
numeric
temperature
criteria
to
protect
critical
life
stages
of
September
2003
RFA/
SBREFA
Screening
Analysis
2
salmonids,
including
criteria
for
salmonid
rearing,
spawning,
bull
trout
rearing
and
spawning,
and
intergravel
dissolved
oxygen
(
IGDO)
to
protect
salmonid
incubation
and
fry
emergence.
Oregon
also
revised
the
temperature
criteria
for
salmonid
rearing
in
the
Lower
Willamette
River
from
70

F
(
21

C)
to
68

F
(
20

C).
In
addition,
Oregon
adopted
new
or
revised
narrative
criteria
and
other
provisions
establishing
a
process
for
adopting
site
specific
numeric
criteria
or
temporary
revisions
to
its
standards.

On
September
15,
1998,
prior
to
approving
or
disapproving
the
submitted
standards
revisions,
EPA
entered
into
formal
consultation
under
Section
7(
a)(
2)
of
the
Endangered
Species
Act
(
ESA)
with
both
the
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS)
and
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
(
FWS)
in
regard
to
listed
and
endangered
species
including
chinook,
coho,
sockeye,
chum,
coastal
cutthroat,
steelhead,
and
bull
trout.
On
July
1,
1999,
the
FWS
issued
a
biological
opinion
that
EPA's
approval
of
the
standards
revisions
was
not
likely
to
jeopardize
the
continued
existence
of
listed
threatened
and
endangered
species,
including
bull
trout.
On
July
7,
1999,
NMFS
issued
a
biological
opinion
that
EPA's
approval
of
the
standards
revisions
was
not
likely
to
jeopardize
the
continued
existence
of
listed
threatened
and
endangered
species,
including
Snake
River
sockeye
salmon,
Upper
Columbia
River
spring
chinook
salmon,
Upper
Columbia
River
steelhead,
Snake
River
spring/
summer
chinook
salmon,
Snake
River
fall
chinook
salmon,
Upper
Willamette
River
chinook
salmon,
Lower
Columbia
River
chinook
salmon,
Southern
Oregon/
California
Coastal
chinook
salmon,
Oregon
Coast
coho
salmon,
Southern
Oregon/
Northern
California
coho
salmon,
Snake
River
Basin
steelhead
trout,
Middle
and
Lower
Columbia
steelhead
trout,
Upper
Willamette
steelhead
trout,
Oregon
Coast
steelhead
trout,
Klamath
Mountains
Provice
steelhead
trout,
Columbia
River
chum
salmon,
Umpqua
River
sea­
run
cutthroat
trout,
southwestern
Washington/
Columbia
River
coastal
cutthroat
trout,
Columbia
River
Basin
bull
trout,
and
Klamath
River
Basin
bull
trout.

On
July
22,
1999,
EPA
approved
the
majority
of
the
revised
standards
submitted
by
Oregon,
including
the
temperature
and
dissolved
oxygen
standards.
EPA
disapproved
the
68

F
(
20

C)
numeric
criteria
for
salmonid
rearing
in
the
Lower
Willamette
River
because
it
did
not
include
a
justification
for
how
the
criterion
would
protect
salmonid
rearing
given
that
elsewhere
salmonid
rearing
was
protected
with
a
64

F
(
17.8

C)
criterion.
Furthermore,
EPA's
own
technical
analysis
of
the
criterion
showed
significant
adverse
impacts
to
salmonids.
EPA
took
no
action
with
respect
to
Oregon's
existing
water
quality
criteria
for
the
Columbia
River
or
its
antidegradation
implementation
plan
because
Oregon
had
not
submitted
new
or
revised
standards
in
1996
on
either
issue.

Both
EPA's
approval
action
and
NMFS
Biological
Opinion
of
"
no
jeopardy"
were
challenged
in
2001
by
Northwest
Environmental
Advocates.
The
plaintiff
also
alleged
that
EPA
had
a
nondiscretionary
duty
to
promulgate
Federal
water
quality
criteria
for
the
lower
Willamette
River
and
the
Columbia
River
and
to
promulgate
an
implementation
plan
for
Oregon's
antidegradation
policy.

On
March
31,
2003,
the
U.
S.
District
Court
for
the
District
of
Oregon
ruled
in
Northwest
Environmental
Advocates
v.
EPA
&
NMFS
(
No.
CV­
01­
510­
HA)
that
EPA
had
violated
the
CWA
and
the
ESA
when
it
approved
certain
water
quality
standards
for
the
protection
of
salmonids
that
were
contained
in
Oregon's
1996
submission.
Although
the
Court
deferred
to
September
2003
RFA/
SBREFA
Screening
Analysis
3
EPA's
scientific
judgment
regarding
the
protectiveness
of
the
specific
numeric
temperatures,
the
Court
found
that
these
criteria
violated
EPA's
regulations
because
Oregon
had
failed
to
designate
when
and
where
these
criteria
would
apply.
The
Court
invalidated
EPA's
decision
to
approve
the
criteria
because
the
absence
of
such
"
time
and
place"
designations
failed
to
protect
the
use
categories
created
by
Oregon,
in
this
case
salmonid
rearing
and
bull
trout
rearing
and
spawning.
The
Court
directed
EPA
to
promulgate
new
temperature
water
quality
criteria
to
address
this
deficiency.

For
similar
reasons,
the
Court
also
vacated
EPA's
approval
of
a
water
quality
criterion
for
intergravel
dissolved
oxygen.
For
this
criterion,
the
Court
found
that
the
6
mg/
l
adopted
by
Oregon
would
not
adequately
protect
threatened
and
endangered
salmonid
species,
and
ordered
EPA
to
promulgate
new
water
quality
criteria
for
this
pollutant
parameter.
The
Court
also
ordered
EPA
to
promulgate
an
antidegradation
implementation
plan
for
Oregon
waters.
Finally,
the
Court
vacated
NMFS'
finding
of
"
no
jeopardy"
in
connection
with
EPA's
approval
of
these
standards,
and
ruled
that
EPA
had
violated
the
ESA
by
relying
on
NMFS's
erroneous
"
no
jeopardy"
finding.
EPA's
proposed
rule
addresses
the
Court's
rulings.

As
part
of
its
preparation
of
this
proposed
rule,
EPA
estimated
the
potential
regulatory
compliance
costs
for
point
source
dischargers.
These
estimates
are
presented
in
EPA's
economic
analysis
of
the
proposed
rule
(
U.
S.
EPA,
2003).
EPA's
analysis
indicates
that
small
municipal
wastewater
treatment
plants
and
small
businesses
may
incur
costs
for
treatment
controls
to
meet
the
proposed
water
quality
standards
for
temperature
and
for
analyses
required
under
the
proposed
antidegradation
implementation
plan.
EPA
does
not
expect
any
of
the
small
entities
potentially
affected
by
the
IGDO
provision
to
incur
compliance
costs.

EPA
evaluated
the
extent
of
the
potential
economic
impact
on
these
facilities
to
meet
its
obligations
under
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
of
1980
(
RFA),
as
amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996
(
SBREFA).
The
RFA
was
enacted
to
increase
agency
awareness
of
the
impact
of
regulations
on
small
entities,
to
allow
for
public
comments
on
regulations
that
affect
small
entities,
and
to
encourage
agency
use
of
flexibility
in
regulating
small
entities.
SBREFA
amended
the
RFA
to
strengthen
its
analytical
and
procedural
requirements.

This
report
describes
EPA's
method
for
evaluating
potential
impacts,
and
presents
the
results
that
suggest
that
the
proposed
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
September
2003
RFA/
SBREFA
Screening
Analysis
4
2.0
Analysis
Method
To
evaluate
the
potential
economic
impact
on
small
entities,
EPA
compared
estimated
annual
facility­
level
compliance
costs
to
the
annual
revenues
of
potentially
affected
small
entities
(
i.
e.,
NPDES
permit
holders
that
discharge
into
the
affected
State
waters).
This
section
describes
the
methods
that
EPA
used
to
identify
the
small
entities
potentially
affected
by
the
proposed
rule's
provisions
and
the
entities
that
potentially
incur
compliance
costs,
and
to
evaluate
the
potential
severity
of
economic
impact
of
those
costs.

2.1
Definition
of
Small
Entities
EPA
used
the
definitions
of
small
entities
(
i.
e.,
nonmunicipal
establishments,
municipalities,
and
nonprofit
organizations)
established
by
the
Small
Business
Administration
(
SBA)
and
the
RFA.
The
SBA
defines
small
nonmunicipal
establishments,
or
businesses,
based
on
industrial
classification
codes
and
size
standards
that
are
usually
expressed
either
in
number
of
employees
or
annual
receipts
in
millions
of
dollars
(
13
CFR
§
121.201).
For
most
of
the
industries
represented
by
entities
in
the
analysis,
the
threshold
is
500
employees;
those
with
a
revenue­
based
threshold
generally
have
a
$
6
million
threshold.
The
RFA/
SBREFA
defines
a
small
governmental
jurisdiction
as
the
government
of
a
city,
county,
town,
school
district,
or
special
district
or
a
tribal
jurisdiction
with
a
population
of
fewer
than
50,000.

2.2
Identifying
Small
Entities
EPA's
economic
analysis
shows
that
there
are
382
dischargers
with
NPDES
permits
in
Oregon.
Of
these,
the
temperature
provision
potentially
affects
48
entities,
the
IGDO
provision
potentially
affects
192
entities,
and
the
antidegradation
provision
potentially
affects
152
entities.
Because
of
overlaps
between
these
sets
of
entities,
there
are
only
269
unique
dischargers
potentially
affected
by
one
or
more
provisions
of
the
proposed
rule.
Exhibit
2­
1
shows
the
number
of
unique
dischargers
by
provision.

Exhibit
2­
1.
Summary
of
Facilities
Potentially
Affected
by
the
Rule
Proposed
Rule
Provision
Municipal
Nonmunicipal
Total
Major
Minor
Major
Minor
Major
Minor
Temperature
3
30
1
14
4
44
IGDO1
28
57
11
51
39
108
Antidegradation2
12
26
2
34
14
60
Subtotal
43
113
14
99
57
212
Total
156
113
269
1.
The
estimates
shown
account
for
unique
facilities
that
are
not
also
subject
to
the
temperature
provision.
2.
The
estimates
shown
account
for
unique
facilities
that
are
not
also
subject
to
either
the
temperature
provision
or
the
IGDO
provision.

EPA
used
the
applicable
population
size
standard
of
50,000
to
determine
which
major
and
minor
municipal
entities
are
small
entities.
Most
of
these
entities
are
publicly
owned
treatment
works
1
The
primary
source
of
population
data
is
the
Bureau
of
Census
data
for
places,
which
is
located
at
http://
www.
census.
gov/
(
accessed
August
2003).
Additional
data
for
minor
civil
divisions
is
located
at
http://
www.
census.
gov/
(
accessed
August
2003).

September
2003
RFA/
SBREFA
Screening
Analysis
5
(
POTWs).
EPA
obtained
2002
population
estimates
for
the
Census
place
or
minor
civil
division
that
corresponds
with
the
name
of
each
municipal
discharge.
1
For
example,
EPA
assumed
that
the
City
of
Adair
Village
Wastewater
Treatment
Plant
serves
the
City
of
Adair
Village,
which
has
a
population
estimate
of
525.
Based
on
these
population
estimates,
EPA
determined
that
there
are
128
small
municipalities
with
one
or
more
potentially
affected
municipal
dischargers.
Exhibit
2­
2
provides
a
summary
of
small
entities
by
rule
provision.

Exhibit
2­
2.
Small
Entities
Potentially
Affected
by
the
Rule
Proposed
Rule
Provision
Municipal
Nonmunicipal
Total
Major
Minor
Major
Minor
Major
Minor
Temperature
2
27
0
13
2
40
IGDO1
23
45
6
38
29
83
Antidegradation2
7
24
1
27
8
51
Total
32
96
7
78
39
174
Grand
Total
128
85
213
1.
The
estimates
shown
account
for
unique
facilities
that
are
not
also
subject
to
the
temperature
provision.
2.
The
estimates
shown
account
for
unique
facilities
that
are
not
also
subject
to
either
the
temperature
provision
or
the
IGDO
provision.

The
113
potentially
affected
nonmunicipal
facilities
represents
a
wide
array
of
industrial
sectors
and,
therefore,
a
variety
of
SBA
size
standards
apply.
For
example,
the
industrial
sector
with
the
largest
representation
is
Wood
Product
Manufacturing
(
North
American
Industry
Classification
System
or
NAICS
3­
digit
sector
321),
which
accounts
for
29
facilities.
This
sector
includes
businesses
engaged
in
activities
ranging
from
sawmills
to
manufactured
home
construction.
The
SBA
size
standard
for
all
relevant
subsectors
is
500
employees.
EPA
does
not
have
employment
data
for
many
of
these
facilities
and,
therefore,
cannot
determine
how
many
would
qualify
as
small
businesses.
Consequently,
EPA
assumed
that
all
nonmunicipal
dischargers
are
small
business
entities
unless
information
from
PCS
indicates
otherwise.
For
example,
the
company
names
of
several
private
dischargers
indicates
that
they
are
owned
by
large
corporations
(
e.
g.,
Boise
Cascade
Corp.
and
Weyerhaeuser
Co.)
and,
therefore,
not
small
businesses.
Using
this
approach,
85
of
the
113
nonmunicipal
facilities
cannot
be
excluded
from
the
set
of
potentially
small
entities.
Exhibit
2­
2
shows
the
breakdown
of
these
facilities
by
provision.

2.3
Evaluating
Potential
Economic
Impact
To
evaluate
the
potential
economic
impact
on
individual
municipal
facilities,
EPA
calculated
the
ratio
of
annualized
compliance
cost
to
annual
revenue
for
each
facility.
For
small
businesses,
sales
data
are
not
available
to
calculate
the
ratio
of
potential
compliance
costs
to
sales.
Therefore,
EPA
September
2003
RFA/
SBREFA
Screening
Analysis
6
conducted
a
sensitivity
analysis
to
evaluate
the
potential
for
significant
impacts
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
businesses.

2.3.1
Municipal
Costs
Annual
costs
are
documented
in
EPA's
economic
analysis
for
the
proposed
rule
(
U.
S.
EPA,
2003).
Only
dischargers
potentially
affected
by
the
temperature
provision
or
the
antidegradation
provision
might
incur
costs;
there
are
no
compliance
costs
associated
with
the
IGDO
provision.
Also,
EPA
cannot
evaluate
the
potential
impacts
of
the
antidegradation
provision
of
the
rule
on
small
entities
because,
although
it
can
estimate
the
number
of
antidegradation
reviews
that
may
be
triggered
by
the
rule,
there
is
no
way
to
predict
which
dischargers
might
request
an
increase
in
loadings
(
or
the
timing
of
such
requests).
Therefore,
EPA
cannot
determine
whether
affected
dischargers
would
be
small
entities.
Note
that
the
economic
analysis
indicates
that,
on
average,
at
most
one
municipal
discharger
might
be
affected
by
the
antidegradation
requirements
per
year.

For
the
temperature
provision,
EPA
estimated
costs
for
all
affected
major
facilities
and
a
sample
of
minor
facilities.
Among
the
major
dischargers,
only
1
of
the
2
small
entities
may
incur
an
annual
cost
of
$
5,190.
For
the
minor
dischargers,
EPA
estimated
the
potential
impact
on
small
entities
based
on
the
estimated
average
annual
cost
to
the
sample
facilities
($
2,720).
The
compliance
costs
for
temperature
controls
include
capital
and
O&
M
costs.
EPA
calculated
total
annual
costs
by
annualizing
capital
costs
at
7%
over
20
years
and
adding
annual
O&
M
costs.

The
appendix
reports
annual
cost
estimates
for
each
small
entity.
All
costs
are
in
2003
dollars.

2.3.2
Municipal
Revenues
EPA
obtained
annual
revenue
data
for
each
of
the
29
small
municipalities
potentially
affected
by
the
temperature
provision
from
the
Oregon
State
Auditor's
Office.
EPA
then
calculated
median
per­
capita
revenue
of
$
860
for
all
of
these
municipalities,
and
multiplied
that
value
by
the
population
estimates
for
the
remaining
municipalities
to
estimate
their
annual
revenues.
EPA
used
the
median
value
rather
than
the
average
value
($
1,294)
to
generate
conservative
revenue
estimates
(
i.
e.,
tending
to
err
on
the
low
side).
This
approach
may
result
in
an
overestimate
of
the
ratio
of
potential
costs
to
revenues.
September
2003
RFA/
SBREFA
Screening
Analysis
7
3.0
Results
Exhibit
3­
1
summarizes
the
results
of
the
screening
analysis
for
small
municipalities.
Based
solely
on
the
analysis
of
small
government
entities,
the
screening­
level
analysis
supports
a
conclusion
that
the
proposed
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
EPA
estimates
that
at
most,
3
small
government
entities
may
incur
annual
costs
that
equal
or
exceed
1%
of
annual
revenues.
For
2
of
these
entities,
costs
may
exceed
3%
of
revenues
(
the
ratios
are
4.5%
and
8.3%).
For
comparison,
there
are
230
small
municipalities
in
the
State.

Exhibit
3­
1.
Results
of
Screening
Analysis
for
Small
Municipalities
in
Oregon1
Category
Number
of
Facilities
Total
small
municipalities
potentially
affected
by
at
least
one
provision
128
Municipalities
with
ratios

1%
3
Municipalities
with
ratios

3%
2
1.
Does
not
include
potential
impacts
of
the
antidegradation
provision
because
the
facilities
affected
are
unknown.
However,
EPA
estimates
that
the
average
annual
impact
is,
at
most,
one
municipal
discharger
incurs
costs
to
prepare
analyses
for
an
antidegradation
review.

A
complete
analysis
must
also
consider
the
potential
impact
on
small
businesses,
which
include
the
85
nonmunicipal
dischargers
shown
in
Exhibit
2­
2
that
EPA
assumed
to
be
small
businesses.
EPA's
economic
analysis
indicates
that
only
13
of
these
facilities
may
incur
costs
as
a
result
of
the
temperature
control
provision.
EPA
does
not
have
sales
data
for
these
facilities
and
cannot
estimate
impact
ratios.
However,
at
most,
only
13
entities
may
experience
significant
impacts.
This
estimate
is
small
(
less
than
100)
and
implies
that
the
proposed
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
businesses.
For
comparison,
there
are
more
than
83,000
small
businesses
in
the
State
of
Oregon
(
SBA,
2003).

The
results
for
small
governments
can
be
combined
with
those
for
small
businesses
to
make
an
overall
evaluation
of
the
potential
economic
impact
on
all
small
entities.
Exhibit
3­
2
shows
the
combined
results
for
two
different
small
business
impact
scenarios.
For
a
low
estimate
of
impact,
EPA
assumed
that
none
of
the
13
small
businesses
potentially
incurring
costs
have
costs
that
equal
or
exceed
1%
of
sales.
Thus,
Exhibit
3­
2
shows
that
the
total
number
of
small
entities
potentially
affected
by
the
rule
increases
to
213,
but
the
number
for
which
costs
may
equal
or
exceed
1%
and
3%
of
revenues
or
sales
remains
the
same
as
in
Exhibit
3­
1.
For
a
high
estimate
of
relative
impact,
EPA
assumed
that
all
13
commercial
facilities
potentially
incurring
costs
have
costs
that
exceed
3%
of
sales.
September
2003
RFA/
SBREFA
Screening
Analysis
8
Exhibit
3­
2.
Results
of
Screening
Analysis
for
All
Small
Entities
in
Oregon1
Low
Estimate
High
Estimate
Total
small
entities2
213
213
Small
entities
with
ratios
>
1%
3
3
16
Small
entities
with
ratios
>
3%
4
2
15
1.
Does
not
include
potential
impacts
of
the
antidegradation
provision
because
the
facilities
affected
are
unknown.
However,
EPA
estimates
that
the
average
annual
impact
is,
at
most,
one
municipal
discharger
and
one
nonmunicipal
discharger
incur
costs
to
prepare
analyses
for
antidegradation
reviews.
2.
The
small
entities
include
128
small
municipalities
and
85
small
nonmunicipal
entities.
3.
Low
estimate
reflects
the
assumption
that
no
commercial
facilities
incur
costs
that
equal
or
exceed
1%
of
sales.
High
estimate
reflects
the
assumption
that
the13
commercial
facilities
incurring
costs
are
small
entities,
and
would
have
ratios
of
greater
than
1%.
4.
Low
estimate
reflects
the
assumption
that
no
commercial
facilities
incur
costs
that
equal
or
exceed
3%
of
sales.
High
estimate
reflects
the
assumption
that
the
13
commercial
facilities
incurring
costs
are
small
entities,
and
would
have
ratios
of
greater
than
3%.

The
combined
results
show
that
at
most,
16
entities
may
incur
costs
that
equal
or
exceed
1%
of
revenue
or
sales,
and
for
15
of
these,
costs
may
equal
or
exceed
3%.
However,
this
worst­
case
result
relies
on
the
conservative
(
i.
e.,
erring
on
the
side
of
estimating
maximum
impact)
assumption
that
13
nonmunicipal
entities
potentially
affected
by
the
temperature
provision
are
small
entities,
and
that
costs
for
these
13
entities
would
exceed
3%
of
sales.
Since
these
entities
are
private
entities,
this
information
is
unknown.
If
the
13
businesses
are
not
small
or
do
not
have
costs
that
exceed
1%
of
sales,
the
combined
results
are
the
same
as
for
municipalities.
Thus,
the
screening
analysis
suggests
that
the
proposed
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
September
2003
RFA/
SBREFA
Screening
Analysis
9
4.0
References
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
U.
S.
EPA).
2003.
Economic
Analysis
of
the
Proposed
Water
Quality
Standards
for
the
State
of
Oregon.
Prepared
by
Science
Applications
International
Corporation
(
SAIC).
Washington,
D.
C.:
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Water,
Office
of
Science
and
Technology.

U.
S.
Small
Business
Administration
(
U.
S.
SBA).
2003.
2003
State
Small
Business
Profile:
Oregon.
Document
located
at
www.
sba.
gov/
advo/
stats/
profiles/
03or.
pdf
(
accessed
August
2003).
September
2003
RFA/
SBREFA
Screening
Analysis
A­
1
Appendix
Screening
Analysis
for
Small
Municipal
Facilities
Potentially
Affected
by
the
Proposed
Rule
Exhibit
A­
1
provides
the
data
for
the
screening
analysis
of
small
municipalities
potentially
affected
by
the
proposed
rule.

Exhibit
A­
1.
Screening
Analysis
for
Small
Municipal
Facilities
Potentially
Affected
by
the
Proposed
Rule
Municipality
Number
of
Entities
Potentially
Affected1
Estimated
Temperature
Control
Cost
($
2003)
Population
Annual
Revenue
($)
2
Cost­
to­
Revenue
Ratio
Temperature
IGDO
Antidegradation
Adair
Village
0
1
0
0
525
451,731
0.0%

Albany
0
0
1
0
42,190
36,301,938
0.0%

Amity
0
1
0
0
1,477
1,270,869
0.0%

Ashland
0
0
1
0
20,215
17,393,782
0.0%

Astoria
0
0
1
0
9,730
8,372,075
0.0%

Athena
0
1
0
0
1,220
1,049,736
0.0%

Aumsville
0
1
1
0
3,087
2,656,176
0.0%

Aurora
0
1
0
0
655
563,588
0.0%

Bandon
0
1
1
0
2,819
2,425,579
0.0%

Bay
City
0
1
1
0
1,158
996,389
0.0%

Bear
Creek
Valley
Sanitary
Authority
1
0
1
2,720
30,631
6,843,894
0.0%

Brownsville
1
0
0
2,720
1,478
1,063,409
0.3%

Butte
Falls
1
1
1
2,720
435
429,589
0.6%

Cannon
Beach
1
2
2
2,720
1,610
4,559,606
0.1%

Canyonville
0
0
1
0
1,370
1,178,802
0.0%

Cascade
Locks
0
0
1
0
1,124
967,134
0.0%

Cave
Junction
0
0
1
0
1,378
1,185,685
0.0%

Chiloquin
0
1
0
0
720
619,516
0.0%

Clackamas
County
District
1
2
2
2
5,440
5,177
20,892,328
0.0%

Clatskanie
0
0
1
0
1,533
1,319,054
0.0%

Cloverdale
Cdp
1
1
1
2,720
242
60,609
4.5%

Coos
Bay
0
2
0
0
15,281
13,148,374
0.0%
Exhibit
A­
1.
Screening
Analysis
for
Small
Municipal
Facilities
Potentially
Affected
by
the
Proposed
Rule
Municipality
Number
of
Entities
Potentially
Affected1
Estimated
Temperature
Control
Cost
($
2003)
Population
Annual
Revenue
($)
2
Cost­
to­
Revenue
Ratio
Temperature
IGDO
Antidegradation
September
2003
RFA/
SBREFA
Screening
Analysis
A­
2
Corvallis
0
0
1
0
49,781
42,833,533
0.0%

Cottage
Grove
0
0
1
0
8,451
7,271,573
0.0%

Creswell
0
1
0
0
3,810
3,278,274
0.0%

Dallas
0
0
2
0
12,865
11,069,553
0.0%

Dayton
0
1
0
0
2,175
1,871,456
0.0%

Dayville
0
0
1
0
127
109,276
0.0%

Depoe
Bay
0
0
1
0
1,287
1,107,385
0.0%

Drain
0
0
1
0
1,016
874,206
0.0%

Dufur
1
0
0
2,720
586
318,592
0.9%

Dundee
0
0
1
0
2,676
2,302,536
0.0%

Echo
0
1
1
0
677
582,517
0.0%

Elgin
0
1
1
0
1,643
1,413,702
0.0%

Enterprise
1
0
1
2,720
1,827
1,290,563
0.2%

Estacada
1
0
1
2,720
2,386
3,059,007
0.1%

Falls
City
0
1
1
0
984
846,672
0.0%

Forest
Grove
0
1
1
0
18,724
16,110,867
0.0%

Garibaldi
0
1
0
0
908
781,279
0.0%

Glendale
1
0
1
2,720
872
2,108,348
0.1%

Gold
Hill
0
0
1
0
1,067
918,089
0.0%

Government
Camp3
1
1
1
0
753
252,780
0.0%

Grande
Ronde
Cdp
0
1
1
0
271
233,179
0.0%

Grants
Pass
0
0
1
0
24,843
21,375,896
0.0%

Halsey
0
1
0
0
728
626,400
0.0%

Harrisburg
0
0
1
0
2,884
2,481,507
0.0%

Hebo
Cdp
1
1
1
2,720
231
216,306
1.3%

Hermiston
0
1
1
0
13,572
11,677,883
0.0%

Hood
River
0
0
1
0
6,075
5,227,169
0.0%

Hubbard
0
1
0
0
2,502
2,152,819
0.0%

Independence
0
0
1
0
6,782
5,835,500
0.0%

Jefferson
0
0
1
0
2,580
2,219,934
0.0%

Joseph
1
0
1
2,720
1,017
838,784
0.3%
Exhibit
A­
1.
Screening
Analysis
for
Small
Municipal
Facilities
Potentially
Affected
by
the
Proposed
Rule
Municipality
Number
of
Entities
Potentially
Affected1
Estimated
Temperature
Control
Cost
($
2003)
Population
Annual
Revenue
($)
2
Cost­
to­
Revenue
Ratio
Temperature
IGDO
Antidegradation
September
2003
RFA/
SBREFA
Screening
Analysis
A­
3
Junction
City
0
2
0
0
5,153
4,433,844
0.0%

Klamath
Falls
0
3
0
0
19,315
16,619,387
0.0%

La
Grande
0
1
0
0
12,259
10,548,126
0.0%

Lake
Oswego
0
0
1
0
35,839
30,837,287
0.0%

Lakeside
0
1
0
0
1,382
1,189,127
0.0%

Lebanon
0
0
1
0
13,156
11,319,941
0.0%

Lincoln
City
0
0
1
0
7,400
6,367,251
0.0%

Malin
0
1
0
0
634
545,519
0.0%

Merrill
0
1
0
0
895
770,093
0.0%

Milwaukie
0
0
2
0
20,563
17,693,215
0.0%

Molalla
0
1
0
0
5,943
5,113,591
0.0%

Mosier
0
0
1
0
412
354,501
0.0%

Mount
Vernon
0
0
1
0
555
477,544
0.0%

Myrtle
Creek
0
0
1
0
3,441
2,960,772
0.0%

Myrtle
Point
0
0
1
0
2,442
2,101,193
0.0%

Nehalem
Bay
Wastewater
Agency
0
0
1
0
1,161
998,970
0.0%

Newport
0
0
1
0
9,588
8,249,893
0.0%

North
Bend
0
1
0
0
9,509
8,181,918
0.0%

Oakland
0
0
1
0
953
819,999
0.0%

Oakridge3
1
0
1
13,600
3,137
3,261,180
0.4%

Odell
Cdp
0
1
0
0
1,849
1,590,952
0.0%

Ontario
0
0
1
0
10,947
9,419,230
0.0%

Oregon
City
0
1
1
0
27,775
23,898,704
0.0%

Pacific
City
Cdp
0
1
1
0
1,027
883,671
0.0%

Parkdale
Cdp
0
1
1
0
266
228,877
0.0%

Pendleton
0
1
0
0
16,407
14,117,229
0.0%

Port
Orford
0
1
1
0
1,133
974,878
0.0%

Powers
1
0
1
2,720
733
514,679
0.5%

Rainier
0
0
1
0
1,744
1,500,606
0.0%

Reedsport
0
1
1
0
4,322
3,718,819
0.0%
Exhibit
A­
1.
Screening
Analysis
for
Small
Municipal
Facilities
Potentially
Affected
by
the
Proposed
Rule
Municipality
Number
of
Entities
Potentially
Affected1
Estimated
Temperature
Control
Cost
($
2003)
Population
Annual
Revenue
($)
2
Cost­
to­
Revenue
Ratio
Temperature
IGDO
Antidegradation
September
2003
RFA/
SBREFA
Screening
Analysis
A­
4
Rockaway
Beach
0
2
0
0
1,267
1,090,177
0.0%

Rogue
River
0
0
1
0
1,856
1,596,975
0.0%

Roseburg3
1
0
1
0
1,300
1,118,571
0.0%

Saint
Helens
0
0
1
0
10,767
9,264,351
0.0%

Sandy
1
1
1
2,720
6,688
7,052,472
0.0%

Scappoose
0
1
0
0
5,326
4,582,700
0.0%

Seaside
0
0
1
0
5,888
5,066,267
0.0%

Shady
Cove3
1
1
1
0
2,317
1,833,820
0.0%

Siletz3
1
0
1
0
1,133
621,666
0.0%

Silverton
0
0
1
0
7,690
6,616,779
0.0%

Stanfield
0
1
1
0
1,984
1,707,112
0.0%

Stayton3
1
0
1
5,190
6,980
6,827,247
0.1%

Sutherlin3
1
0
1
2,720
6,962
5,990,379
0.0%

Sweet
Home
1
1
1
0
8,145
6,065,413
0.0%

Tangent
0
1
0
0
943
811,394
0.0%

The
Dalles
0
0
1
0
12,006
10,330,435
0.0%

Tillamook
1
2
2
2,720
4,514
4,315,499
0.1%

Toledo
0
0
1
0
3,431
2,952,168
0.0%

Troutdale
0
0
1
0
14,892
12,813,663
0.0%

Union
1
1
1
2,720
1,947
1,909,045
0.1%

Veneta
0
1
0
0
2,834
2,438,485
0.0%

Vernonia
1
0
1
2,720
2,243
1,555,778
0.2%

Waldport
0
0
1
0
2,043
1,757,878
0.0%

Wallowa
1
0
1
2,720
837
1,888,728
0.1%

Warrenton
0
1
2
0
4,185
3,600,939
0.0%

Wasco
0
0
1
0
350
301,154
0.0%

Westfir
1
0
1
2,720
274
1,892,945
0.1%

Weston
0
1
0
0
715
615,214
0.0%

Westport
1
1
1
2,720
100
32,751
8.3%

Willamina
0
0
1
0
1,846
1,588,371
0.0%

Winchester
Bay
Cdp
0
0
1
0
488
419,894
0.0%
Exhibit
A­
1.
Screening
Analysis
for
Small
Municipal
Facilities
Potentially
Affected
by
the
Proposed
Rule
Municipality
Number
of
Entities
Potentially
Affected1
Estimated
Temperature
Control
Cost
($
2003)
Population
Annual
Revenue
($)
2
Cost­
to­
Revenue
Ratio
Temperature
IGDO
Antidegradation
September
2003
RFA/
SBREFA
Screening
Analysis
A­
5
Yachats
0
0
1
0
628
540,356
0.0%

Yamhill
0
0
1
0
794
683,189
0.0%

Yoncalla
0
1
1
0
1,039
893,997
0.0%

Private
Facility­
Assumed
Small
13
59
56
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
=
not
available.
1.
In
most
instances,
the
proposed
rule
affects
only
one
entity
per
municipality.
In
a
few
cases,
however,
there
are
multiple
entities
that
are
potentially
affected
by
the
rule.
Where
applicable,
EPA
combined
the
cost
estimates
across
the
facilities
within
a
municipality
before
calculating
cost­
to­
revenue
ratios.
2.
EPA
obtained
actual
revenues
from
the
Oregon
State
Auditor's
Office
for
the
29
small
municipalities
potentially
affected
by
the
temperature
provision
(
municipalities
with
a
nonzero
entry
in
column
2),
and
used
those
data
to
estimate
revenues
for
the
remaining
municipalities.
3.
Sample
facilities
for
which
EPA
had
actual
cost
estimates.
